I decided to post it here because it got long, and also because I use either real-world identity or a very transparent one on the book review sites. Unfortunately, we are now living in the times when people are getting murdered for saying unpopular things, domestic terrorists openly put bounties on people, and I see a significant part of the industry this book concerns and I belong to being completely fine with that - of course as long as "bad people" are getting hurt. I suspect many of them might classify me as "bad people". I don't really expect my stupid book review to really be seen by enough crazies for anything to happen, but there's no reason to take the additional risk. Pseudonymous publication is safer. I could also not publish it at all, but if I already bothered to write it, I might as well let others read it.
I am not sure how to describe this book. On one hand, it is a fascinating account of what happened in Facebook from a person who was right in the middle (or rather at the top, as the global public policy director, working directly with the CEO and COO) of it and is certainly worth reading if you want to be educated on what was/is going on (it ends in 2017 when the author had been fired). On the other hand, the sheer blindness of the author to her own role in the events and her limits is impressive. Facebook is now trying to retaliate against Sarah Wynn-Williams (that's the author) for violating various NDAs, which she most likely did, but given their response to it is so far "we don't do that anymore", one could infer at least some of the juicy stuff is actually true. The trick would be to know which parts. All of it, some of it, a little of it? One of her coworkers says "definitely not all of it". Others agree. Wynn-Williams herself in the interview to Business Insider declared that the question of factual accuracy is not the one that matters and witnesses contradicting her claims are "a distraction". Which in my book means "some of it" is the best we are getting.
To get it out of the way, the cases of workplace harassment she describes are horrible. I do not know how accurate the descriptions are - we heard only one side there, so I can not assess any aspect of the veracity of the claims - but if they describe real events at least to some degree, it is absolutely unacceptable and should not have happened to anybody. I was a bit put off by the cavalier attitude with which she approached the Kavanaugh affair in the epilogue, treating the fact the somebody could even stand besides Kavanaugh during the hearing as the ultimate sign of moral degradation (surely everybody knew the verdict before hearing any testimonies, and it was supposed to be just mere formality?). Thus I suspect the matters aren't so black and white and she is not the most reliable narrator. But even with that, what she described per se is totally horrible. That's all I have to say about that.
Moving on to the other parts of the book: if we look at what had been happening, the author literally inserted herself as the main person to drive and shape Facebook's international growth and engagement with top international politicians. If introducing 21st century informational technology into societies that aren't ready for it is dangerous and prone to disasters, she is the person who enabled, engineered and performed the deed. Probably because she was sure with her at the top, it will be alright (spoiler: it wasn't). And it's not some random "caught in the flow" thing - she literally came to Facebook to do just that, and she did. Pretty successfully, given the amount of praise she received from M.Z. and his subordinates. The essence of her complaint is that she did not have enough power to do it exactly like she wanted, and that's why it often turned out wrong. If only she were an all-powerful dictator (or at least, if all the power were given to people who think exactly like her) everything would have been much better. That was her conclusion at the end - wrong people were censored, wrong people were not censored, an all that because they didn't listen to her.
The parts where she describes how she stayed for a long time in Facebook because she otherwise wouldn't have healthcare are quite hard to believe. First of all, there's COBRA, and she is married, and there are ways to buy health insurance without being employed by Facebook. Sure, it's expensive, but I have trouble believing a person who was at the top of Facebook since such early days and speaking to people like Zuckerberg and Sandberg all the time didn't have at least some money going to them. Surely, maybe not fabulously rich like M.Z. himself, but at least solid middle-class level? Even if she were hopelessly naive and saintly unbothered by money concerns, she could not find an hour during all these years to talk to a lawyer and a financial advisor who would explain here how to navigate such things? In Silicon Valley, where these matters are discussed in every second coffee table at every second coffee shop? And being on the top of FB, literally rubbing shoulders with heads of state and personally engaging their closest teams, and having NZ Embassy and Oxfam on her resume too, she had absolutely no prospect of other employment whatsoever, besides Facebook? Utterly unbelievable. What is entirely believable though is that the author found it hard to give up all that shmoozing with heads of states and fixing the world for the rest of us, and trade it for some boring office job where you don't even have a chance to see Xi Jinping once, and don't get to laugh about how insignificant the president of Guatemala is.
Complete lack of reflection and realization of author's own biases permeates the whole book. A lot of the second half is dedicated to the death of the democracy in the US, also known to some as the (first) election of Donald J. Trump. Of course, half of the country voted for him, but what to that? They were sure a bunch of evil people, or fools misled by evil people, and never would win any elections if not for their dirty tricks. The fact that the Clinton win had to be a prescribed, normal way of events is ingrained so deep that the latter campaign is never really mentioned in the book, maybe hardly once. All the evil tricks Trump campaign supposedly played with Facebook are described in detail, but how Clinton campaign used social media at all? And if they did not - why? What were they doing all that time? Why nobody from the right thinking people in Facebook reached out for them if they for some weird turn of events forgot about social media, despite the fact that Obama campaign used the social media very actively and had been publicly on record bragging about it?
These questions are not even asked, never mind answered, because these question only matter if there were a competition between two equal teams. The author never admits the thought. There is the normal turn of events - Democrats win, the power is in the hands of The Experts (TM), people vote for whoever they are told to and behave how they are told to behave, for their own good - and when it happens, there's nothing to discuss, it is as it always should be. Well, maybe let's talk about how to make it even better. Only the departures from the normal events - like people voting for the wrong candidate, clearly because they were deceived and are too stupid to realize that - deserve discussion. And to think there actually were evil people - including inside Facebook! - who thought it was a good thing! They actually talked about some policies they might like, something Trump may do that would be good - as if the Coming of The Antichrist is some kind of normal political event! Imagine the gall, the sheer audacity of not recognizing the suffering of all the right thinking people and not subjugating their own views to the demands of the moment! How do such people even exist? If one were religious, that would be a good moment for the protagonist to have a crisis of faith - but fortunately there's nothing like that in that universe.
This is the quality that is present in the whole text, every discussion of every question concerning any policy or decision. The author never argues for a certain outcome, as one would have in a debate, never presents any deliberate reasoning or substantiation. To do that would be to recognize there could exist multiple opinions on the matter, and people with wrong opinion may need to be convinced by way of logic and reason. That's not how it works, not in this book. There is a normal, obvious, correct and proper opinion or decision, and every normal, proper and decent person already knows it. It does not need to be argued or proven. It does not even need to be pointed out - like if you notice a baby around, you don't need to be told "don't eat the baby!" - you already know the babies are not to be eaten. So the author just describes her own shock and horror at realizing that people in front of her are monsters - if they do not actually follow the proper way. Rarely it goes beyond that - and almost never to actually have a proper argument. Because what's the point arguing with monsters anyway? How would you convince a person who wants to eat a baby that it is not good, and why you are talking to such a person at all?! This is how this book handles most of the controversies.
What the book described about Zuckerberg changed my opinion about him a bit. It looks like he indeed had been the autistic startup techie who just wanted the product to grow, and initially had no interest in wielding the emerging power for anything but improving the service. He seems to indeed have had that libertarian streak in him that many other tech founders had and lost (he lost it too, of course). Wynn-Williams and others successfully convinced him he has to play with world powers, and become a world power himself. That of course would change any person. But looks like the most of the problems with freedom of speech at FB originate from the likes of Wynn-Williams (quelle surprise!) rather than from M.Z. himself, at least initially. That said, as a corporation FB exhibited the typical psychopathic approach most of major corporations now exhibit - be woke on the outside, do anything to expand and profit on the inside, including making deals with most horrible individuals and regimes, if it pushes up the numbers, all while proclaiming high-minded ideals. This part of the book is one that is the most believable because I can observe it from the outside, both in FB and in many other companies. The company as a whole and top persons in particular are all colossal hypocrites - that part I totally believe. That, of course, does not exclude the director of global public policy too.
The author proclaims in multiple places that all the wrongs and evils Facebook did could actually have been avoided, if only. But the "if only" part is regrettably shallow. The author hints she knows what is the right thing to do, and possesses the recipes for fixing of all modern ails of social media - from teen addiction to genocide in Myanmar - but she never actually tells us, what exactly should have been done, and why she thinks it would have worked. It's not that her argument is bad - but here again, she doesn't even see the need to make a proper argument, mere proclamation "you should have done it differently!" is enough. It may be acceptable from a random layperson, but not from somebody who had been the top policy maker for Facebook and is actually writing a book about it! If you say it had to be made different, spend some time on proper argument of how and why it's better! If you think it'd make the book too long, you can drop some episodes like you being bitten by wasps or such, I am sure it was a profound experience for you but I am equally sure the reader could survive without it.
So, is this book worth reading? It was for me. I am by nature and nurture a skeptical reader, and an unreliable narrator is not something I am afraid of, if there's substance to chew on. This book has the substance. It would be a good book if it didn't also have the numerous flaws I described above, but such as it is - I end up with the same I started with - I do not know how to describe it, even though I do not regret having read it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I appreciate you posting this. I hadn't previously heard of this book, and I'm interested in the subject, so I might read it now.
That said, this was a hard review to read because of a lack of structure. You don't ever actually clearly state what the book is about or why we should care about the author. (Your 3rd to last paragraph references "director of global public policy" but it's not clear if this was her actual title at facebook, and this should be front and center). It's also clear that you believe that the narrator is unreliable, but you don't actually provide any examples of what she wrote that makes you believe that.
So other than being made aware that the book exists, I didn't really gain anything from your review.
More options
Context Copy link
I read the first half of this book a month or so back on a friend's suggestion. I ditched it because I knew most of the public details already and the writing wasn't good enough to motivate me to continue. I must say that I echo your skepticism about the author's reliability: she starts the book with an anecdote of her getting attacked by a shark and a subsequent medical episode that is so unbelievable that I found it very hard not to narrow my eyes at everything that came after. It's the kind of thing where if you were reading the same story told by a source from 200 BC, your history TA would say "now obviously it didn't actually happen, but it serves as a literary device to introduce themes of the writer's concerns not being taken seriously by those in authority."
It did really feel like she just didn't get the problem. She keeps being aghast that these presumedly progressive, Good Thinking people would say they support Good Things, and then would actually act purely on avarice. Or that someone could pose as a feminist girlboss and then not actually act the part. She maintains that instead of doing bad things, companies should just say they are going to do good things, and then actually do them! And does not comprehend that she is part of the problem.
Unlike many memoirs, I can say I'm very confident this wasn't ghostwritten. The writing is very amateurish; it's awkward reading with very little flow. Example passage: "But things take a turn for the worse. Sheryl really wants the megaphone. Even though she knows Mark doesn’t. And she has a solution."
And she never does the work to explain what "good things" actually are. Either she assumes it's obvious to everybody, or she doesn't bother to explain it. For a person in charge of doing the very same good things, essentially hiring herself for the position, it's quite disappointing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link